No, and I'm not sure just how well existing Hackage tooling/process
matches the workflow (due mostly to ignorance of existing Hackage
tooling/process). To the degree that there's a mismatch, it may have
reason sufficient to abandon the approach - or it may suggest
improvements to tooling/process.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Taru Karttunen
On 08.10 14:12, David Thomas wrote:
Right. With a nest of #ifdefs, you still have the same number of branches (at least - there may be some combinations of options that you don't support and it won't be obvious), they're just implicit and harder to work with.
Have you got an example of a library that works with branches for GHC-versions while maintaining feature-parity across branches with a versioning scheme that works in practice with Hackage?
- Taru Karttunen